Archbishop Harry Flynn of Minneapolis agrees with Cardinal Mahony. He’s said publicly that he will not deny Communion to members of the pro-homosexual, anti-chastity Rainbow Sash Movement. He says that such denial is for “extreme circumstances” and that only an individual can decide whether he is in a state of grace. Gee, I thought the duty to bind and loose was given to the apostles and their successors, not to every Catholic. Archbishop Flynn and bishops like him seem to be at odds with the Church’s clear and consistent teaching on this matter.
Bravo for these good men who would defend the Eucharist. For ‘all that’s necessary for the spread of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ Fortunately, there are a few good men here. We need more (a LOT more) to join them.
And good women too!
This guy is sure showing some cajones. I am not sure I would be able to do the same. I pray that I would. I agree, Sinner, I hope this kind of zeal for the Eucharist is catchy.
“I am not sure I would be able to do the same.”
Hey, Dan Jasmin. You would have the courage, I’m sure of it! – You know, active homosexuals sin mightily against God’s design and will and love in their self-harmful and soul-damaging acts, and are in desperate need of God’s and our love. To deny them the Eucharist (without malice or pride) is actually an act of deep love – for it keeps them (or any flagrant sinner) from living a lie. – For to save from sin is a deep form of love (and is why Christ was brought to us). I think that the Church (and you and I too) need the courage to deny the Eucharist to such people, but also to reach out to them and invite them, in kindness and love, to come to understand that the chastity they (and we also) are called to will be greatly liberating to their souls and will allow them to love God and others more perfectly. Courage, when understood to be an act of love, becomes greatly easier. Yeah?
It’s call fortitude. One of the seven cardinal virtues that flew out the window when the “fresh” air was let in back in the 1960s. Well, if Flynn won’t act as a successor to the Apostles, then Mr. Pence has been inspired by Holy Spirit to do what Flynn won’t.
The media, of course, will put Mr. Pence and his courageous group into their bigotry corner, reserved for all who are politically incorrect. And some twit of a man or woman reporter who has about the same knowledge of the issue as Porky Pig will write a scathing report.
Here in Chicago under the guidance of Cardinal George, pastors (and Eucharistic ministers) have been instructed to deny the Rainbow Bash group communion.
We don’t know where or when these folks will appear to thumb their noses at Church law, but be sure that it, too, will receive the same kind of remedial writing and reporting that will occur in Minneapolis. I have a feeling that a certain alderman’s daughter, notoriously a grandstander, will make her appearance of courage surrounded by thongs of swooning fans.
Folks, the chickens are coming home to roost. Now, who will advise us just how bad it was back in the mean old 1950s and before?
I’m quite surprised at Archbishop Flynn. I just came back from Mnpls/St Paul and had the opportunity to hear some of the good things he’s doing-like replacing the minor sem’s director with an outstanding priest, Fr Bill Baer, and placing others in strategic places to make good changes.
As I understand it-though this move makes it hard to see what he’s doing-he is making changes slowly-and deliberately. There is lots of excellence in this A-Dio, …
hmmm…
What is he doing.
Should we have to guess what our bishops are doing? Is there something wrong with them being forthright? Can they make their yes a yes and their no their no? Or are we always at the mercy of their manipulation of everything, especially if it comes from the Vatican?
Sinner, with all due respect, you write: “You know, active homosexuals sin mightily against Gode_gmt>
Further, God has obviously designed the sexual organs of man and woman to ‘fit’ together and complement each other, and their purpose is obviously to produce new human life. A man’s seed is designed to join with a woman’s egg – and both are designed to create a new human being. Now, people (and especially men), can come to eroticize all sorts of things, rather than what they were meant to eroticize – children, animals, objects, people of the same sex, underwear, etc. etc. There are deep psychological reasons for such, and no one is to blame for such (as they are not to blame for any psychological disorder), but all such eroticizations lead to the use of sexual organs in a way in which they were not meant to be used – and which, as we have seen, are often actually harmful to the body. Such acts are also extremely effective spreaders of disease – one reason why, even today, AIDS, for example, is still primarily a homosexual disease in the United States, and why the majority of male homosexuals carry multiple (often deadly and/or incurable) venereal diseases – and also why their lifespan is decades shorter, on average, than for straight people. (God, out of love, assuredly doesn’t want that for them.) Further, God designed men and women very differently in other ways – so that they complement each other in life, and particularly in the raising of children, where each has deep and profoundly different contributions to make to those children. With regard to the sex drive – the wild and always ready male sex drive is complemented by the sex drive of a woman that is much more tied to emotional connectedness. This way, God ensures the propagation of the species with the man’s drive, with a sure emotional bonding of man and woman (in marriage for life). To make this work, the man must control and limit his sex drive, and learn self-control out of love for God and his wife. This does not work with homosexual men – for both are men – with the wild and never-sated sex drive. And that is why homosexual men are far less likely to be monogomous than straight men, and are far more likely to be promisuous and compulsive in their sex lives – and why we have the now common phenomenon of homosexual men going at it with strangers in parks and highway rest stops. And assuredly, just as anyone can stimulate ones own sexual organs, homosexuals can find way to stimulate each others’ sexual organs – and such is pleasurable (for them). But such acts have nothing to do with the complementary design of man and woman, nor with the creation of new human life, nor with the sexual bonding that is meant to exist between husband and wife in marriage. The fact that we can stimulate each other’s sexual organs does not automatically make such a good. (One could stimulate the sexual organ of a child or an animal, but such would NOT be good.) OK, now onto love (the much more important part!).
For any true Christian, sex is never meant to be the greatest or greater part of life. (Our primary commandments, from Jesus, are to love God with all our heart, strength, soul and mind and to love each other as ourselves.) In fact, all Christians are to live chaste lives (sexual abstinence, or fidelity in marriage between man and wife). Why? Because sex outside of marriage between man and woman brings us to treat others (who are not ours) as sexual objects, and creates a sexual selfishness, in which we look at, use, and think about each other for selfish sexual satisfaction. This is not true love. Two homosexual men essentially use each others bodies for sexual pleasure – without the bonding and procreative ability that God meant to put into the marital act. That is why, for instance, a great many of the homosexuals who join the Courage program of the Catholic Church, and who embrace chastity, find out that their love for each other grows! rather than diminishes. In the same way, as a single man for 26 years, I lived a chaste life, and could truly love (Christianly) many women, without compromising that love by sexual thoughts (most of the time, anyway!) or acts. In short, male or female homosexuality thwarts God’s design for the joining of males and females. Now, what are homosexuals to do? Well, first, they should trust and love God enough to follow his rules for chastity. In that, they will (as with unmarried straights) find greater love and freedom than without being chaste! They will also find that they can become more like Christ, which is what all us Christians are meant to do. And of course, Christ was completely dedicated to God, his Father, and lived a chaste and celibate life (and is our model). Further, there are a great many homosexuals (both men and women), who, once they start living chastely, come over time to appreciate the opposite sex. Many have deep-seated problems with father or mother, and oftentimes these problems can be psychologically resolved – and this helps them to find appreciation for the opposite sex as well. Either way, Christianity (and Catholicism) are quite clear on the issue of chastity. We are all called to it – where chastity means, in its true broad sense, abstinence outside of marriage and fidelity within it.
(fouth part – couldn’t fit in three!) I can tell ya, Bubbles, that in 26 years of a chaste life, I often wanted sex, but lived very, very happily and fulfilledly, and free from sin and using others in a sexual way. I never doubted God on chastity, and can tell you, truly lived happily in His love. Now, finally, what about homosexual ‘couples.’ The truth is – and this is something so hard for most to believe – sex is not necessary for true love! We are called to love each other in the fullest and deepest sense as Christians, and that does not mean sexually! I love my children with all my heart – but would never think of such in a sexual way. Same for my friends – some of whom are brothers and sisters to me. Same for my parents, and my sister and so on and so on. Remember this Bubbles – there are many things which are pleasurable in life – but many of them thwart God’s design and love. It can often be pleasurable to put someone down, or to have sex with someone who’s not your wife, or to have sex in an unmarried state, or to drink way too much, or to take drugs, etc. etc. But the greatest pleausure of all, if we can see it and feel it, is to love God so much that we trust Him enough to be obedient to Him. And if we can do that over time, we find that we will naturally want to be obedient to Him, that we will be freer and find more love in our lives than we would have otherwise (though that is hard to see when one is greatly attracted to sexual pleasure). And super last, Bubbles, homosexuals need God’s and our love, because such is needed by everyone on the great and good earth that God has seen fit to provide for us.
With much brotherly love,
Sinner
Dear Sinner:
That is quite an impressive overview of human sexuality within the Christian context. You expressed the flaws and dangers of homosexual acts quite well yet kept the essentially good personhood of all of us in the forefront. Actually, parts of what you wrote are quite eloquent in the defense of man as a child a loving God who is expected to act in a way that recognizes his or her relationship to the Father. Mind if I cut and paste it into my files?
O.K Bishop pilla has the Rainbow sash on his website. Will Cardinal George deny him Communion?
see discussion here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1143556/posts
Hi John Hetman – Thanks, and no, I don’t mind at all. You know, in my wife’s and my Confirmation group of teens – one of the concepts that almost all of them have never been taught is that God’s morality exists out of His love for us. When they come to see this, it makes it all so much easier to understand.
Best,
Sinner
Sinner, thank you for your explanation. As far as your guessing goes, you’re off. I agree entirely.
But, from my misunderstanding of what you originally wrote, it’s difficult to distinguish between acting in love toward someone, and protecting one’s own moral purity. Particularly, if the only loving act ever expressed toward someone, is this defense of the Eucharist.
One would be hard pressed to regard the “this is a loving act” explanation of motivation, as anything but a pleasant fiction, told to avoid the other, more common assumption that we’re simply rejecting people.
Sure, Bubbles, I think I understand what you’re driving at. (And I’m glad my guessing if off!) – Well, first, I simply never meant to say or imply that the defense of the Eurcharist be the only loving act expressed toward someone! Actually, it was the opposite that I was trying to express. – That while denying the Eucharist to an obstinate sinner IS an act of love – we also need to be sure to reach out to such sinners in love to help bring them to Christ. Refusing to affirm sin – in whatever form – is ALWAYS an acts of love, right? And certainly, providing the Eucharist – Christ’s body – is the ultimate affirmation. The rejection is NOT of the person (for we are called not to judge), but the rejection of the sin (which we are called to hate and to reject and to flee from). It is a grave injustice (and form of unlove) to let someone think that their obstinate sin is somehow OK – for it invites them to keep on sinning – and endangers their soul and salvation – and keep them from God.
A question for the archbishop: how can an individual in open rebellion towards the Church’s authority, in the very act of attempting to make the liturgical rites and the reception of a sacrament into a subversive political statement, possibly be in the state of grace?
Dear Christine, et al—
I came across a quote from a Black Protestant referring to Black clergy in which he ed, “There ain’t no sheep like most shepherds.”
During the last several years especially, the seemingly overwhelming majority of our shepherds have turned out to be either sheep or wolves. While they deserve our prayers, the actions and omissions of these bishops are contemptuous. They are lazy cowards, heretics, liars, and wastrels.
Whenever possible we best ignore their lack of teaching or flawed teaching. Christ warned us of them and they have been around, in one form or another, since His Ascension.
Chicago had Cardinal Bernrdin, but it also has a strong conservative streak that he could not corrupt. And we have been spared the kinds of losers that are now in Baltimore, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Minneapolis, and Washington, DC., among other dioceses.
It’s amazing (maybe not) how the vast majority of priests and bishops who criticize traditional Catholics have uneasy consciences about their personal behavior.
Hey Bubbles – One more thought also. You know – to provide Communion to obstinate and public sinners of any sort – or to those who promote and/or condone sin harms greatly children who are watching – for it leads them to believe that one need not confess one’s mortal sins before taking Communion. This is a serious sort of scandal (in the true sense of the word), and can lead others to ignore sin in their own lives. As I’ve said many times before on these posts – the leaders of this Church so often seem to put the welfare of children (physically and in terms of teaching and example) last in their priorities. Children should not be exposed to obstinate and public sinners and promoters of sin insisting on some perceived ‘right’ to take Communion. I certainly don’t want that for my children. Rather, I want my children to understand that ingesting the Body of Christ means something, and that their souls should be in a good and sinless state before doing so. Shouldn’t all parents want that?
One last thought, Bubbles… The greatest form of love we can show someone is to help them secure their salvation… (Which, of course, is the whole point of Christ’s dying on the cross in true and infinite love for us….) Christ, and priests (who are to live in persona Christi), and all the rest of us, are called to help keep others from that which could jeopardize their salvation (and of course, to promote that which helps secure it!). To not confront obstinate sinners about their sin (however difficult or politically incorrect or ‘offensive’) is not true love – it’s rather apathy about someone’s salvation. Remember, Christ did not condone sin, and often created great storms of protest when he did confront it (with the Pharisees, as an example). Christ’s loving mission was NOT to not offend, but rather to save! That IS our mission as well. It is the most truly loving mission there is.
Just a little related anecdote, Bubbles. I know a homosexual guy who has come into our parish. He is obviously homosexual and is out,’ but is looking for a holier life. The pastor assigned a good and holy young man to help and befriend this homosexual guy. They play tennis together, they have met some joint friends, etc. The assignee tries to be somewhat involved in this homosexual’s life – but of course, never condones sexual sin (and in fact, is completely repulsed by it). Over time, the homosexual guy has started to consider leading a truly chaste life and has started to confess his sins (including the sexual ones). And one comment he made to me struck me deeply. He said: “Until now, I was never actually loved by a man before (true brotherly love). Now I see what I did not before…”
“During the last several years especially, the seemingly overwhelming majority of our shepherds have turned out to be either sheep or wolves. While they deserve our prayers, the actions and omissions of these bishops are contemptuous. They are lazy cowards, heretics, liars, and wastrels.
Whenever possible we best ignore their lack of teaching or flawed teaching. Christ warned us of them and they have been around, in one form or another, since His Ascension. “
Hey John Hetman,
You rightly describe many of our bishops (and with choice and accurate language!). But rather than ignore their poor teaching, me thinks we should confront it – politely, persistantly, and insistently. We’re having a thing in our parish about the poor CCD teaching. For the first time in years, some parents (including my wife and I) are protesting the utter vapidness of the teaching. More are joining the effort, and those in charge are having to take notice.
Best!
Sinner
(and ‘wastrel’, what a word…)
Dear Sinner:
I am a thorn in my pastor’s side for a number of issues that I have raised. At one point, it involved the Archdiocese. So I am no stranger to voicing my protest. However, human beings are limited and, Lord knows, we are assaulted now by every form of madness in society.
My mother (from a peasant background) was a firm believer in the power of Satan in the world. We used to dismiss her warnings as superstition. Now, I am sure that her intuition was on target. We need go no further than “the scandal” in the Church, the state of Massachusetts, Canada, and Western Europe. That’s without mentioning our adversaries who would like us to utilize the Koran rather than the Bible.
There is a saying from somewhere that the Devil cannot stand being mocked and laughed at…he/she is impotent without human participation. So, he/she can go annoy the Democrats and “moderate” Republicans. I have to sow wild flower seeds. The season grows late.
Sinner—you are an inspiration and we thank Dom for creating this site and allowing us to vent and comment.
Perhaps RC you could attain a copy of the letter handed out to the people who attended Mass which stated that no one would be denied the Eucharist. Or what would be easier would be to scroll to the very top of this page and see what Bishop Flynn stated on the matter.
Trying to prevent people from receiving communion when the Bishop publicly stated that they could receive is an act of defiance. If you are looking for a public statement coming from the Bishop or Pastor explicitly forbidding people from placing themselves in the aisles and trying to stop others from receiving, I have yet to find that statement. But I also can’t find a quote from Bishop Flynn specifically stating that “pies should not be thrown at people you don’t want to receive Communion during Mass “. So I guess its possible that the next Pentecost could resemble a Marx Brothers movie.
Both the sash wearers and the men who kneeled in their way openly defied our bishop and priests during the most sacred of moments. You do not answer one wrong with another. Both groups can voice their opinions every other day of the week. This thread of opinions can quote the Church’s doctrine on homosexuality and be right to do so. But you cannot ignore the Church’s teaching on respecting and adhering to the leaders of our church. Also our Church’s doctrine teaches that nothing should ever detract from the sacredness of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
“Also our Churchso) – though priests are in a different spot that way. My loyalty is to God and Jesus Christ first, and to the authentic teachings of Christ’s Church. The bishop is flatly contradicting those teachings – by allowing obstinate, public and unrepentant sinners to take Communion. This is a scandal to parishioners and children – and teaches them exactly the opposite of what they are supposed to be taught. It is shameful in every way – regardless of what some cowardly bishop says. Look at the homosexual molestations scandal – parents were told by bishops not to go to the police – the bishops would handle it appropriately (yeah, right). Priests were told by bishops not to go public with their knowledge of the rape of children. In that case, obedience is just collusion with pure evil. Worst of all, the bishop’s inaction helps mar the souls of the sash protesters. It is a cowardly, unloving and wrong action which should never be supported by faithful Catholics.
Sinner I am not advocating that you or anyone on this thread does not have the right to confront their bishop on issues that are important to you and the Church. I am simply stating that during Mass, the primary focus must remain on the liturgy. And you do take a vow every time you profess the Creed.
The last survey that I read stated that 70% of all US Catholics believed that the liturgy of the Eucharist was symbolic. That’s more than two thirds of our church going against dogma. Where is the outrage? Where is the protest there? Holy Mother Church is a living breathing entity. There are flaws that need to be rectified. Voices need to be heard. However Mass is a sanctuary, not a rally. Sacredness is not a matter of decorum.
John Hetman seems to infer that I am a congregant that prefers order to truth. The truth is that I was a witness to people leaving the church prior to Mass out of fear. The truth is I saw young men and women weeping during Communion at the lack of respect shown by both parties.
hear you – Jaime – and understand your view. But I respectfully disagree with it. Here’s why:
As you say: “Sacredness is not a matter of decorum.”
I agree! The Ushers were silently and persistently and politely trying to preserve the sacredness of the Eucharist – regardless of decorum. The alternative – defilement of the Eucharist, scandal to the faithful (including, shockingly, children), and leading unrepentant sinners AWAY from their salvation (a monstrous act of unlove).
“The last survey that I read stated that 70% of all US Catholics believed that the liturgy of the Eucharist was symbolic.”
Well, then the best thing would be for those types of Catholics to see that there are those who truly understand what the Eucharist is. The Ushers sent a great example to children to stand up for what, you know, Catholics are supposed to believe. This was a great teaching moment on the Ushers’ part – particularly for the squeakling bishop. Wish my children had been there to witness that faith and courage and true Christian witness.
“The truth is that I was a witness to people leaving the church prior to Mass out of fear.”
Out of fear of what? That someone would stand up for the sanctity of the Eucharist? People today fear discord or offense or disagreement of any sort. (Anything’s OK (inc. all sorts of sin) – as long as we don’t get anyone upset…) Jesus Christ offended lots and lots of people – in order that souls be saved. If you’re not willing to offend, you’re not willing to save souls. The two almost always go together.
“The truth is I saw young men and women weeping during Communion at the lack of respect shown by both parties. ”
No lack of respect was shown by the Ushers. What they did was precisely an act of love and respsect – to not let unrepentant sinners believe that unrepentant sin is OK – and to not let parishioners think so (especially children). The bishop, who ostensibly exists to save souls, would prefer to allow those souls to be endangered. Shame on him.
“John Hetman seems to infer that I am a congregant that prefers order to truth. The truth is that I was a witness to people leaving the church prior to Mass out of fear. The truth is I saw young men and women weeping during Communion at the lack of respect shown by both parties. “
It would be difficult for you to know why all of the individuals were weaping. I know of some of the individuals who were weaping because the gays were recieving. Our tactics were peaceful and designed to be as unobtrusive to the Mass as possible. We did not physically prevent anyone from recieving. Someone in this Church needs to make a stand to defend the Eucharist. If people were walking up to communion with Swastica’s on their arms I would sure hope you would stand in their way. It is my understanding that in WW II this actually happened.
God bless
Actually Thessalonian, I am acquainted with the three that I saw weeping. So I know first hand. My statement stands.
And for the love of all that’s holy, is it possible to have a discussion thread without the Nazis showing up? How about the KKK?
I will defend the Eucharist. I will protect it. And I will acquiesce to the directives of my bishop on who shall and shall not receive. And yes, if a bunch of Nazis show up next Sunday and my priest says “please do not allow the Nazis to come forward”, I will lay down my life. (This also points out a flaw in your analogy, the priests were supportive of stopping the Nazis)
But if my sworn enemy sits next to me at Mass, I will make my peace with him before I receive communion.
A friend who was with us was acquainted with some who were weeping as well. Second hand but I trust this man.
I understand your objections to what we did. Our local parish priest, whom is very orthodox and I have great respect for (I am sure you would too) told one of our group “you must go and defend the Eucharist”. Many other local orthodox priests were saying the same. I have no quarrellel with AB Flynn with regard to his theology on the subject.
The point about the Nazi’s is that they had an external sign. If a man whom I knew was a Nazi went to commuion without the swastica I would not prevent him from going (as long as the Bishop did not ask me to). But when there is an external sign in defience of the Church I hold the scandal to be so great that it requires action outside of the AB. I am sorry but that is how I feel. I will be discussing my actions with my confessor later this week to ensure right perspective but to date, while acknowledging those who oppose me, I stand by my actions. This situation is extreme and if we wait for the weak US Bishops to lead us out of it, it won’t happen. Our purpose was not so much to block anyone from communion as to give our leaders the support they need to do what is right in this matter. The US Conf. of Catholic Bishops has recommended that the Rainbow Sash group not recieive communion. Yet few Bishops have had the courage to stand up to them. I am going to write AB Flynn very soon with regard to the issue as well.
God bless
By the way, your objection to me bringing up the Nazi’s implies that you think somehow that homosexuality and the support of it is somehow less of an offense than anti-semitism. The Pope says homosexual acts are a “grave moral evil”. I think the media is getting to you a bit.
God bless
Thessalonian,
You didn’t want to participate, but you went anyway. You were carried away with peer pressure, anger, pride and sanctimony. And you committed a gravely schismatic act. Repent. Do so publicly. Before the schism takes hold around the country.
What you did violates canon law. If you disagree with me on this, or don’t know how to read the canon, then let us simply reason together. If a small group of laypersons had the right to veto with whom the Church is in Communion, would any diocese in the world be still in union with the Pope?
When the Devil controls the media, the law, the police, the courts, and the legislatures, what makes you think that the laity is even well-informed enough to make a definitive moral condemnation of a bishop? Did you hold a trial? What information are you acting upon? What theology degrees, ordinations and blessings have you received? Was there at least a single Deacon in your presence? One monk or nun?
What you did violates the Biblical teachings of Jesus himself. Was He not obedient unto death, death on a Cross? You went out of your way to be disobedient, not just to any worldly authority, but to the one He Himself consecrated and founded. You have literally disobeyed God’s annointed.
You have made Mass less safe around the world.
You have debased yourself to the level of the Rainbow sashers.
Do you think it was divine inspiration that invented the idea of physically preventing the reception of Communion? Do you think this was somehow a unique idea? Don’t you realize that every pro-life, anti-death culture activist in the United States has already thought up this same idea and rejected it? What you did was say yes to a demon that had already been rejected by many.
What’s next? Protests of the Novus Ordo? Interference with the Tridentine Rite? Booing when the choir sings in Latin? Denial of Communion to the visiting baseball team? What message does this tell your kids about dealing with their own spats and temptations to rebellion? Should they stand in the aisles to prevent the teacher from issuing homework?
You have swallowed Protestantism, Voice of the Faithful, and the 60’s, and incorporated their errors and disobedience, while pretending to agree with the teachings of Rome. You obviously have never heard the teachings of Rome. You tried to fight evil with evil, and evil is rejoicing for your error.
May God let me be wrong.
St. Michael the Archangel, defend [the Church] in battle. Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do thou, o prince of the heavenly host, by the divine power of God, cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I offer Thee the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference with which He Himself is offended. And, through the infinite merits of His most Sacred Heart, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners. Amen.
Seamole, you make unwarranted assumptions and engage in ad hominem attacks. I’d advise you to stop now.
I find it ironic that those who would stand up (or kneel, in this case) for the sanctity of the Eucharist and to prevent it from being used to promote evil are themselves being accused of such, while those who are really perpetrating evil are left uncriticized.
The Ushers were not judging their bishop or making determinations as to the state of people’s souls. By wearing the sashes, the Sash-ayers were declaring themselves to be outside of Communion with the Church. This was not a matter of the internal forum, but of an external political statement.
The comparison to the Nazis is apt in that they proudly wear their contempt for the Truth, and thus for Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist, literally on their sleeves.
No bishop can order a Catholic to condone or accept that which is objectively evil. Allowing the Eucharist to be used by those promoting evil as good to cause people to misunderstand the Truth cannot be condoned. I don’t think these men did anything wrong. Your examples do not apply because they do not fit the pattern.
“You didn discouraged them from doing so.
” Do so publicly. Before the schism takes hold around the country. ”
Seems it already has. Somehow 250 people wearing rainbow sashes are not schismatic, yet everyone I talked to wearing a sash denied that homosexual acts were a grave moral evil.
“What you did violates canon law. If you disagree with me on this, or donntent>
“Our role is NOT to actively prohibit someone from the
> Sacrament. We cannot bully someone into not receiving the Sacrament.
That
> would constitute a sin against charity and a sin against love of neighbor. “
It is precisely the opposite, Camilam. To allow an unrepentant sinner to proceed to ingest the Eucharist before confessing his sin is a serious sin against charity. Love of neighbor, which you are right that we are called to, means to NOT affirm or condone sin – but to save from sin (which is why God sent Christ to us). To allow someone to potentially jeopardize their salvation by our inaction is a serious form of unlove. Loving our neighbor is about helping that neighbor attain salvation in the embrace of God’s love. Affirming persistent and unrepentant sin is unlove of neighbor. This bishop’s action is like a dad, who when confronted by a son who says he’s on drugs and wants the parent to OK that, says, “Sure, son. Go ahead. Do drugs all you want.” The dad, in such a case, is showing no true love toward his son (but is, of course, giving the son what he wants). The bishop’s message to these sinners – “Hey, sure, you engage in deviant and sinful sexual acts, harmful to body and soul, and you actually want to promote such in front of people and children in Mass, and hey, no problemo… Go for it. Promote away…” And in this way, the issue if far greater than just the grave unlove shown these sinners… For the bishop is creating a horrific scandal – by allowing parishioners and children to believe that the promotion and commission of deviant sex acts are not sin. As Christ told us, any who would lead the little ones to sin will suffer severe consequences. In short, the bishop has allowed unrepentant sinners to defile the Eucharist, to ignore Church teaching regarding the Eucharist, to teach children that deviant sexual acts are AOK, to teach children and parishioners that taking the Eucharist in a state of unconfessed sin is AOK, and to teach children that it’s fine to let sinners promote sin publicly in church and to desecrate the Mass with the promotion of sin. That’s crazy. In the old days, I would have been shocked that bishops could be so callous with regard to our children and to unrepentant sinners. But after thousands of kids have been raped by priests and the priest rapists have been moved all over the placed by the bishops, I am no longer surprised.
When the adulteress is brought to be stoned, before Christ, he saves her from those who would carry out that sentence against her, forgives her sin and warns her to ‘sin no more.’ (And of course, Christ will later give his body and blood so that that sin can be forgiven…) What this whole situation is akin to is like a group of adulterers and adulteresses being brought before Christ and others wearing pretty and colorful signs which say: “We wanna commit adultery whenever and however we want, and there’s nuthin’ wrong with it! And ya know, Jesus, we want you to OK our adultery, and publicly, right here and in front of others and in front of the little ones you say you care about. Sure, go ahead, give up your body and blood for us in horrific torture, but please, please don’t dare to tell us to ‘sin no more.’ That would offend us, don’t ya know… If you really love us (and don’t want to hurt our feelings, and you’re with it, and you’re cool and easy), and if ya don’t want us to make a nasty scene, you’ll sanction our sin and tell everyone else it’s no big deal at all…”
Thessalonian,
From what Thessalonian has written about the mass, it didnkeep looking for neat decorum where none exists. There are also seasons for death, war and anger.
I think that you need to level your accusations at cowardly AB Flynn and not the righteous acts of the Ushers.
” to teach children and parishioners that taking the Eucharist in a state of unconfessed sin is AOK”
I’m curious Sinner. How could you possibly know that the sashers had not been to confession?
And Thessalonian just to clarify, yes the Holy Father has called homosexuality a grave moral sin. If we are to compare grave moral sins to the Nazis, please don’t forget any husband and wife who engage in any activity with each other outside of intercourse, people committing premarital sex, and anyone who has ever masturbated. The homosexuals do not have a corner market on grave moral sinning.
Now if a 15 year old kid who masturbates is comparable to a group that strived for world domination, desecrated the cross and killed 10 million jews, then your analogy stands. While I fully acknowledge that all grave moral sins are wrong, I think it does a huge disservice to the jews by saying anyone who has masturbated has the same amount of evil as the Nazis
John,
At last we have made a breakthrough. This is a matter to be taken up with the Archbishop….It is not a matter to be taken up in the Sacred Liturgy. We agree. But, this time should be at some point between Monday and Friday 9-5 (or whenever the Chancery is open) and not during the Sacred Liturgy.
I ultimately support the Ushers of the Eucharist, in their position, but I don’t support them USING the Liturgy to promote their adgenda. That is not their place. That is the issue.
Thank you.
———————————————————————-
Sinner,
I have stated, “Our role is NOT to actively prohibit someone from the Sacrament.”
Canon Law states,
Can. 129 e you and I are sinners? Who are on a greater journey to find the meaning of Truth through the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church? Should we not be teaching, in love and Charity?
God Bless,
Camilam
“I2
camilam42@gmail.com
10.3.0.101
2004-06-03 11:12:30
2004-06-03 15:12:30
IS THE IGNORANCE INVINCIBLE?
I would assert no, therefore, they can have their erroneous judgement enlightened by True Faith.
Therefore, we must follow CCC 1794 ” A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.
Pax et Bonum,
Camilam
An important part of this is the last part of CCC 1789; l is in mortal danger – because no one had the guts or courage to help him leave his life of sin, and because others actually encouraged him to believe that his sin was AOK. What greater form of unlove is there?
Thanks for the conversation Sinner….
You state, “Well, to begin with, our priests and bishops (and CCD teachers) are virtually silent about sexual sin, and often refuse to teach anything about it.”
I would disagree with that statement. Examples, Archbishop Burke, Cardinal George, Bishops Bruskewitz, Sheridan, Steib, Meyers, DiNardo, and not to mention Cardinal Ratzinger and the Holy Father, to name a few. As far as the CCD teachers go, I cannot begin to name the numbers that teach in these dioceses and others. By the way, I challenge you to go into the Archdiocese of St. Paul and the parish of St. Agnes, and you will find that in the Archdiocese there is sound teaching.
You then state, “Yet, I have NEVER heard a priest say anything about such acts.”
Look to the writings and preachings and teachings of Frs. Groeschel, Pavone, Lavis, Trigillio, Fox, and within the Archdiocese of St. Paul; Fr. Altier, Msgr. Schuler, Fr. Piche and many, many others.
You state, “In this case – right teaching would mean: 1) inviting these sashists to sit down and learn why the Church teaches what it does, to learn how their acts endanger their salvation, and that the Church wants to let them know that out of true love for them (for all of Godp:comment_author_url>
67.83.96.124
2004-06-03 12:59:25
2004-06-03 16:59:25
“I DEMAND AN APOLOGY. “
You’ll not get it, Camilam. We have now had several thousand teenage boys homosexually molested by priests in the last few decades. Those priests, were, by definition, active homosexuals. Teenage boy molesting homosexual priests are a certain percentage of the total number of active homosexual priests. Those non-molesting active homosexual priests remain in the priesthood (as well as all the homosexually molesting priests who were not named by their molestees). The priesthood remains heavily homosexualized, and several surveys of homosexual priests have shown (you can find them on the net if you’re interested), that the majority of them 1) do not believe homosexual acts are sinful; and 2) are not chaste. If you think that we can have a situation where thousands of boys are homosexually molested by priests, and not have an infestation of active homosexuality in the priesthood, you’re living in la-la-land. Finally, if you think the bishops and many, many priests are not intimidated and afraid to speak about active homosexuality, you’re also way off. Heck, the whole scandal centers on homosexuality among priests, and the bishops, in their little conference on the scandal, didn’t even have the guts to talk about it. Everyone knows that active homosexuality in the priesthood is the problem, yet the bishops can’t even mention it. How craven. How cowardly. How wrong.
As a faithful Roman Catholic, I take absoulute exception to this statement. you are left with one.
The only ones who will respect your opinion are the ones you have shown respect. That is true in our church. It is true on this forum. I have remained respectful in the sharing of my views. I have received respect in kind. What Camilam and I seem to agree upon is that your actions on Sunday were not respectful to the AB, to the priest or to the congregation. Your opinions are with great merit.
I would love to have the opinions of the Ushers of the Eucharist heard here and in Rome. I would love to have the pulpit teach me and my brethren the true meaning of the Eucharist. Respect and love will carry that opinion. Defying them will not. Calling our priests, bishops and cardinals cowards, wastrels and heretics will fall upon deaf ears.
Thessalonian,
You ask, “Can you point me to the canon that says that if a Bishop is preaching heresy, letarity and; that 1) you appear to be in favor of doing nothing to prevent people from hijacking the Mass and the Eucharist to actively promote sin, and 2) in favor of prudence.”
Prove it to me by my statements. I said no such thing and for about the 5th time, I don’t condone the Sashists actions, nor do I condone the actions of the Usherists.
Finally, you say, “Sounds logical to me.”
It cannot be, the statement that you put forth is full of fallicies….. sweeping generalization, equivocation, and non causa pro causa.
It is hardly logical. I implore everyone that we stick to the facts.
absit invidia,
Camilam
Camilam,
We are from two different worlds. Let’s leave it at that.
With true brotherly love,
Sinner
Sinner,
You assert, “….do you think Jesus Christ wants these sinners to be affirmed in their sin?”
Who has assumed that Iam thinking this? Prove it to me by my statements. You cannot.
cedo maiori, Jesu,
Camilam
Sure, Camilam – I will answer your question. No one has assumed you are thinking this, nor was an assertion made to that effect. However, if it is true that Christ does not want these sinners to be affirmed in their sin (and assuredly, Christ does not so want!!!), then the bishop was not acting ‘in persona Christi’ in so affiirming them – and was wrong to allow this Christian travesty to proceed as he did.
Sinner,
You say, “However, if it is true that Christ does not want these sinners to be affirmed in their sin (and assuredly, Christ does not so want!!!), then the bishop was not acting nd unrepentant promoters of sin during Mass). God sent Christ to us to allow for a way for us to attain salvation and eternal life – whereby Christ would atone for our sins in dying for us, and allow us forgiveness for them, if (and it is a big IF) we truly repent of them. To love unconditionally is to will and teach others to repent of their sins, so that they may attain salvation and go to heaven to be in God’s light. The free will that we are given by God is presumably given so that the choice we make – to repent of sin and become pure and holy and Godly – or to not – is truly ours and is truly meaningful. What is so shocking about this affair is that the bishop has completely abdicated his primary responsibility, which is to save souls. He doesn’t care enough for or love truly these sinners (or those they lead to sin through scandal), to even challenge their abuse of the Mass and the Eucharist and their false and soul-damaging beliefs. This is a callous and unloving act of the first degree. And yes, Jesus loved all – but he will certainly not accept all in the end. In his love, he offers each of us a chance at salvation. But he makes it abundantly clear that many of us will not attain it – and whether we attain it will be up to us. (The wheat will be separated from the chaff, the sheep from the goats, wide is the road which leads to destruction, better to cut off a hand (or in this case another part of the body) than to go to hell, etc. etc. etc.) What the bishop is ostensibly saying to all here is that, well, these sinners can (literally) go to hell…and he’ll not do anything about it. He’ll not have the courage and fortitude and charity to put up with their denunciations, or to reach out to them and properly teach them, or to overcome the inevitable scene created during Mass, or to deal with the hostile press, or to truly love them. He just doesn’t care enough for their souls. Such a man should not be a bishop. – As for the Judas thing – well – whole books have been written about that. Judas had free will to choose to NOT betray Christ right up until he kissed him – which was after the last supper. However, Christ, as God, knew what he would do. Judas presumably died unrepentantly and unconfessed (as he committed suicide), and yet, if he had truly believed, could have sought (and received) forgiveness from Christ. That he didn’t seem to know that, as an apostle of Christ (one of the luckiest men alive), is truly sad. Overall, the saddest thing here is that a bishop doesn’t care enough for these homosexual men to lead them to repentance and holiness and the eternal embrace of God’s love. When such happens, you have reached the point of irrelevancy, and in the case of scandal, the actual embrace of evil – which, in many respects, is where we’re at with many in today’s Church.
Best,
Sinner
You know, Jaime, Camilam et al, the way I imagine a Christ-like bishop is one who steps outside to talk to these homosexual men, and calls them to repentance out of love – and invites them to a holier and purer life, in the model of our Savior. This bishop would say: “Hey, guys, I want and pray deeply that I can provide the Eucharist to you, but first you have to confess your sins and clear your souls. I will pray for you each and every day, and no one will pray more for you than I, and I do that out of true love for you. Come, give me a chance to explain God’s plan for you, and give me a chance to lead you, and let me show you happiness like you’ve never known. I want you to be part of Christ’s great Church, in full communion with him, and with pure and untainted souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden light….”
I appreciate the dialogue Sinner. I would like a bishop that would do that with all of us. But I am curious as to how you would answer my question.
Jaime
Sinner,
I agree whole-heartedly with that assertion.
Here are a couple of thoughts.
“The church
No, but it sounds like the Archbishop is mixing up the teachings to muddy the waters of straight forward action. And you aren’t doing a bad job either blurring the issue—which was that of the Rainbow Sash desecration of the Eucharist and the righteous response of the Ushers.
The Archbishop holds the aces up his sleeve. Respect is earned, Camilam, not given automatically. And Rainbow Sash people have no right to respect for trampling on Church law and acting as if their hormonal needs trump the right to worship in reverence.
Your position, dear Camilam and that of the Archbishop, are dangerous to the moral health of the Church and the nation. Christ did not tell us to act as doormats for polite thugs to wipe their shoes upon. And I do recall the Gospels having Jesus act and speak not as the consummate pacifist wimp that the Left would like him to be.
“Christ did not tell us to act as doormats for polite thugs to wipe their shoes upon.”
Matthew 5:39
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Luke 6:29
If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic
I’m sorry John what were you saying about consummate pacifist wimps?
I’m still wondering if anyone aside from Camilam is going to answer my question
John,
“No, but it sounds like the Archbishop is mixing up the teachings to muddy the waters of straight forward action.” That is what you say.
How, based on his own words is he mixing up teachings?
You then say, “And you arenment.
The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.” (Mt 22:37-40)
John, you are correct in asserting that Christ did not ask us to be doormats, but He does ask us to love our neighbor and to HELP our neighbor to rightly form his conscience, as evidenced in the contact with the Caananite woman.
And does not Christ command us to love our neighbors? He does, he says that the law depends on it. I think that we need to teach our neighbors, all of them (gay and straight, Mohammedan and Jew) that we can attain heaven.
Don’t be so quick to judge. For what happened when they questioned the call of Matthew?
Scripture says, “As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the customs post. He said to him, “Follow me.” And he got up and followed him.
While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples.
The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.
Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.” (Mt 9:9-13)
I think that Christ has it right. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
AMDG+
Camilam
“I think that Christ has it right. Love the sinner, hate the sin. “
Camilam, Camilam – Again, to love a sinner is to call him to repentance, not to affirm his sin. The bishop not only affirmed his sin, but created scandal in the Church. Neither of these are loving acts (and scandal is a form of evil). A Church that can’t find the cojones to call sinners to repentance is a nothing church – an irrelevance. Which, of course, is what the Church is for these homosexual men. (“I can engage in perverted sex acts, and I can promote them during Mass in front of others, including children, and nothing will happen to me or my soul – for the bishop goes along with it all…”) The bishop here made no ‘call to sinners’ as Christ did. He just ignored them and abandoned their souls.
Welcome all – A New Day in the Church Has Arrived!!!
Come all sinners – murderers, child sexual molestors, parents who beat their children, thieves, adulterers… Come and partake of our holiest offering – the Body and Blood of Christ. NO NEED TO REPENT!!! Take the Body and keep on sinning!!! Yeah!!! And feel free, while you’re at it, to wear a sign or symbol advertising your form of sin!!! What a deal!!! It’ll be a sin party!!! And parishioners – come all with your kids. See the sins advertised and promoted!!! No more boring Masses!!!! DId you confess your sins before taking the Eucharist? Hey – in the New Church – no need to do that anymore!!! Come one, come all – to the New Church!!! It’s good for you…
Sinner
A deals a deal. You said if I answered your question honestly, you would answer my quiz in the same regard.
“I completely disagree with what the Bishop states. He is wrong and we are right. Therefore we will do exactly what we want because we know betterp; That is my point today. Both parties feel justified in defying the Bishop. Both are angered in the defiance of the other group.
Sinner,
“The bishop not only affirmed his sin, but created scandal in the Church. Neither of these are loving acts (and scandal is a form of evil).”
If that is how you feel, take it up with the Ordinary. At the Chancery. Don’t do it at Mass. It is not our place to deny the Sacrament, it is the place of the convening authority, in this case, the Ordinary. I have stated this many times.
However, as I have posted, I think that Archbishop Flynn has made public statements as to his stance on homosexuals. If you have questions about it, take it up with him at the proper time.
THAT is the basis of my whole thread to this string. You however, seem to think that is not good enough or at the very least absurd.
For the nth time, I am not condoning the actions of the Rainbow Sash Movement. I think that what they did was a sacriledge. I do not condone the actions of the Ushers of the Eucharist. They had no right to usurp the decision of the Ordinary in a public forum, which is what they did.
I practice what I preach. I have sent a letter to the Archbishop stating as much. I have called for him to please clarify his decision. THAT is my role within the Church. It is NOT my role to be the grand inquisitor and deny a Sacrament to anyone.
By the way, I think that I have answered your questions honestly and openly, and I ask you to answer this question, “I completely disagree with what the Bishop states. He is wrong and we are right. Therefore we will do exactly what we want because we know betterevil. There is no “fighting Nazis” exception to this rule or any other in Catholic theology.
If one is willing to commit evil to prevent greater evil, hers is a sin of despair. She has imperfect faith that Jesus will eventually come to judge the living and the dead, and that she will be judged for her own actions, while others will be judged for theirs.
Now let’s revisit and assess our assumption. What sins may the Usherites have had to commit in order to prevent the act of Communion? Let’s start with disobedience.
Did the Usherites commit an act of disobedience? They surely seem to have violated canon law, especially canons 899 and 1375. But divine law trumps any human law, even canon law. One may not disobey divine law to obey human law; this is true disobedience. However, appealing to divine law in this particular case misses the point that it is not human law which established the priesthood and its authority to perform the Eucharistic sacrifice: Jesus was talking to the Twelve Apostles when he said, “take, eat, all of you…do this, in remembrance of me.” It is not simply human law but Sacred Scripture which tells us to obey our presbyters and to avoid factionalism, open scandal, risk of violence and disruption of the solemnity of the Mass.
So the question comes down to one of conscience, but that doesn’t mean the answer is subjective. If one is ordered by lawful human authority, even Church authority, to commit an act against one’s conscience, one may refuse under divine law. What is an act against one’s conscience? It is, simply put, a sin.
[continued…]
The fact of this case is that the Usherites’ consciences were clear of the sins of the priest and of the sodomites. There are nine ways a person can be an accessory to another’s sin: counsel, command, consent, provocation, praise or flattery, concealment, partaking, silence, and defense of the ill done. There is no danger of consent when one does not have the authority to consent or not to consent. Silence was avoided in the media, and again at the door of the church. So it seems clear that the conscience exception does not apply. (If there was a way to prevent the act of the priest and the sodomites from occurring, without committing a sin oneself, it would obviously be permitted, not to mention encouraged, as a form of charity.)
Whether those people are wearing rainbows or swastikas, we simply can’t prevent the sacrilege from happening without committing a sin of our own. In this case, there is clearly a sinful disobedience. Perhaps other aspects of the Usherites’ actions which are also sins—profanation of the Mass during Communion, disruption of the Mass during Communion, scandal, disunity, risk of provocation of violence, violation of liturgical rubrics. But if there is even just one sin, which is a necessary component of preventing this act of Communion, then preventing this act of Communion is forbidden.
* * *
Now Thessalonian raises an interesting objection, claiming that because nobody ended up being denied Communion, no disobedience occurred. However, what the Usherites have defended in public is the action that they are reputed to have taken, namely “to block the path of Rainbow Sash members when they come forward for Communion at the noon Mass”, in plain violation of the authoritative order, and under no obligation of conscience to do so. Even if they never took the action they were defending, they are still defending it, much as, for example, appearing in an advertisement for contraception is itself objectively evil. (An additional problem with this objection is that if the Usherites weren’t actually attempting to prevent evil, then their excuse for doing anything at all illegal under cover of conscience, etc., evaporates.)
Obviously, if the Usherites’ comments were misrepresented in print, then there is a present opportunity here for a group of people who like to take proactive measures to prevent the sins of others against the Church, to engage in just such an activity. Even if they were represented correctly, they have the opportunity to recant and minimize the harm done. But the reward for such an action is shrinking, as more Catholics learn about the Usherites and join the movement in their hearts.
(Praying quietly during Mass, including praying the Rosary, except during the short time for private prayer, is a violation of the rubrics, and would therefore be disobedient if done with that knowledge. Most people don’t know or realize this; I only heard it a few days ago on a Mother Angelica rerun. I think there’s an exception if you want to say a quiet prayer for our Lord to help you participate in the Mass, i.e. “Lord, give me the grace to not punch out that flaming apostate when he walks by my pew”.)
[continued…]
Another comment which caught my attention was the support of some hidden priests for the Usherites. While I don’t believe anyone is under an obligation to disclose, it appears that some laypersons were witnesses to a grave and unnecessary act of disobedience against the bishop, not to mention cowardice. If the dissenting priests felt obliged to cause what they advocated to occur, rather than send pawns they would have done it themselves. Their oaths to the bishop would also be superseded by whatever authority they presume the laity is acting under, and whatever desire they had to avoid suspension would presumably be an earthly desire also superseded by whatever force compelled the Usherites to action.
* * *
I see that Ushers of the Eucharist is led by a former 60’s liberal activist (Pence) and accompanied by Protestants (in another article). I see VOTF-style rabble-rousing about the priest sex-abuse scandal. I see that the bishops have “abdicated their authority” (I thought that required the Pope’s permission?). I see a lot of meaningless self-congratulation about “doing what’s right”, “standing up for good” and “an act of love”. I see shadowy presbyters who wish to remain shadowy for the moment. I attended a Voice of the Faithful convention in Boston. It was exactly like this, verbatim, including the former 60’s liberal activists, the support of Protestants, etc. In short, I see the shibboleths of schism and anti-Christ and none of Jesus and Mary.
Speaking of our Blessed Mother, this thread has barely mentioned her. Perhaps we should contemplate her example, for she will always lead us to Her Son.
I, for one, have failed to live up to our Lady’s example on this thread. Obviously, I posted in anger and without charity. If I had taken even a moment, I would have seen Thessalonian’s e-mail address and would have directed my comment privately to him. May others take up the cross I wretchedly threw down, patch the gaping holes of logic and knowledge, and otherwise compensate for the errors I have spoken. We we all agree that this is grave matter, so if I am wrong, then let none be misled thereby, but may he find for himself the Truth of our Lord Jesus, through Mary. May we all find His truth, and achieve His salvation.
Seamole,
Re-post your remarks in the Discussion Forum.
http://bettnet.dyndns.org/blog/forum/forum.php?which=mainforum
I’m closing this thread down. I will delete any further responses.